• Welcome to the Heroscapers 2.0 site! We've still got some dust to clear and adjustments to make, including launching a new front page, but we hope you enjoy the improvements to the site. Please post your feedback and any issues you encounter in this thread.

Competitive Unit Congress

Dignan

BBQ-er of Beer Bathed Brats
Competitive Unit Congress


Council Members
Dignan
DrLivingston

Representatives
Gulp
Rym
CheddarLimbo
Arcus
Killometer
Queenmojo
yamissflash
tcglkn
FOOTBALLDUDE88
Paronychodon
dok
Beowulf
ZAKOVANI

Change Status

Accepted Changes
Spoiler Alert!

Changes Currently being reviewed

Initial Proposals



Revised Proposals

Rejected Changes
Spoiler Alert!


Non-viable Unit List
Acolarh

Deathwalker 7000
Deepwyrm Drow
Dund
The Einar Imperium
Empress Kiova
Gorillinators
Grok Riders
Hatamoto Taro
Jotun
Khosumet
Major X17

Marro Drudge
Moriko
Parmenio
Roman Archers
Runa
Shaolin Monks

Shiori
Sudema
Tagawa Samurai Archers

Templar Cavalry

Master Win Cho Woo
Pelloth
Zettian Guards

Ana Karithon
Ashigaru Yari
Brandis Skyhunter
Chardris
Emirroon
Erevan Sunshadow
Greater Ice Elemental
Jorhdawn
Kato Katsuro
Sahugin Raider
Saylind the Kyrie Warrior
Sir Dupuis
Ulginesh
 
Last edited:
By Laws

Purpose

The Competitive Unit Congress is an organization tasked with adjusting non-viable units of Heroscape for use in double blind, 400-600 point "traditional" tournaments. After a figure is adjusted, it should become a viable choice for players when building competitive armies for such events. Adjusted figures should not be more powerful than existing top tier units, nor is the goal of the CUC to make all units equal in power to the top level units for this format. Additionally, adjustments to units should be as simply and thematic as practical. Elaborate custom abilities and sweeping modifications to the units should be avoided.

Congress composition
The Competitive Unit Congress is composed of Council Members and Representatives. Any member of the Heroscape community can become a Representative by participating in playtesting the proposed changes, submitting a valid vote (explained below), and meeting the required prerequisites for said vote. Council Members are selected over time based on their contribution to the process and their efforts throughout the site.

Member Duties

Representatives and Council Members shall participate in playtesting the proposed changes and turning in votes. Representatives can abstain from as many votes as they like. Council Members must not abstain from more than 50% of the proposed change votes over a 3 month span. Failure to reach this level of participation shall result in Council Members being demoted to Representative status.

Council Members are the only members of the Congress that can directly proposed changes to be playtested. Representatives are free to discuss and suggest any possible changes, but do not have the direct power to propose changes.

Process

Propose
Once a month (on the first Monday of the Month or as near as possible) the Council Member whose turn it is shall propose one possible change to a unit on the non-viable units list. Additionally, the council member may propose one minor motion (see below).

What can be proposed?
Errata – A Council Member may propose any change he wishes to a unit on the non-viable unit list. This can include any number of changes to stats, traits, special powers, points, etc. While there is no limit to the amount of changes that can be proposed to one card, Council Members are strongly encouraged to keep all proposed changes as simple as possible.
Revision/Change/Deletion of Existing Accepted Changes – Overtime, it may become evident that previous changes has flaws and balance issues. Additional, it is possible that changes including new rules and new units may drastically alter the viability of a unit. Council Members may choose to propose a revision, change, or complete deletion of an existing Accepted Changes.
Minor Motion(s)
Changes to the Non-Viable Unit List – A Council Member may propose that a unit be added or removed from a the Non-Viable Unit list.

Length of Testing
After a change is proposed, it is listed under pending for 3 months. After which time all votes on the matter are due. Votes can be submitted any time before the three months are up.


Testing Rules
  • Only one unit with proposed change may be tested per match. Matches between two armies with proposed changes shall not count.
  • Games should be played on “tournament style” maps. While we will not generate a list of qualified maps, they should be similar to BoV maps in footprint and materials required.
  • Armies for proposed change matches shall be between 400-600 points.
Votes
All votes will be submitted via PM to Dignan. Votes should remain private to prevent group think among the Congress. Discussion of changes currently under review is also discouraged to ensure the members form individual opinions about the proposed changes.
New Proposed Change and Revisions to Proposed Changes – A Representative or Council Member wishing to vote on new proposed change or revisions to existing changes must include the following information with their votes:
  1. Number of games played with proposed change (minimum of 5 games)
  2. General description of Opposing armies played (ex. Knight/Mass, Orcs/Grim, Glads/Blasts, etc.)
  3. Win/Loss record with errata units.
  4. Vote – Either Yes to accept proposed change, No proposed change is too powerful, or No proposed change is too weak.
  5. Brief Commentary – A brief explanation may be included with the vote.
Changes to Non-Viable unit List and Deletion of Accepted Proposed Change – A Representative or Council Member wishing to vote on changes to the Non-Viable Unit List or Deletion of Existing Accepted Proposed Changes must only submit a Yes or No on the matter.

Vote Weights
All votes will be weighted either 1 or 2. As long as a vote is valid (it fulfills all of the requirements and is properly submitted) it will have a minimum weight of 1. All valid votes from council members shall have a weight of 2. Additionally, the most complete Representative vote (including number of games played, validity of games, and commentary) shall be weighted 2.

Votes on changes to Non-viable Unit List and Deletion of Accepted Proposed Changes will be weighted 2 for Council Members and 1 for Representatives.

Proposed Change Resolution
A vote passes as long as it receives 75% of the votes (after weights applied) and a minimum of four Congress members have voted. If the minimum number of members is not reached for a proposed changed, it's voting window will be extended for one month. After the extension month, if the proposal still has not received enough votes, it will be removed from the Pending list. A proposal will only receive one extension month.
 
Alright, this is just my first draft at this and I'm open to adjusting anything on this list so please speak up if something doesn't make sense or your don't like something I've set up.

Additionally, anyone wishing to be added to the Representative list, just shoot me a PM.
 
Sounds good. Nice work, Dignan. Tonight I'm going to be trying some units out. Probably the EI with Kiova bonding.

500 point army:

EIx 2 - 280
Kiova - 90 = 370

Hmm... 130 points left. Any suggestions? I was thinking Krug and Parsley (Isamu).
 
Is there any chance of the Council deciding on the errata'd unit(s) to playtest before December 7th?
 
Couple simple questions.

Are non-council members welcome to post here and have their opinion heard?

Is there a limit to the number of members in the council or representatives groups? (sorry if it's listed I didn't notice any, not there there needs to be)

I'm not sure if I agree with the secret ballot system, for example BoV has a healthy record and doesn't require such measures.

Sounds good. Nice work, Dignan. Tonight I'm going to be trying some units out. Probably the EI with Kiova bonding.

500 point army:

EIx 2 - 280
Kiova - 90 = 370

Hmm... 130 points left. Any suggestions? I was thinking Krug and Parsley (Isamu).

You could throw in some ranged squads, Nakita, AE, 2x Stingers, Krav, Kaemon Awa etc. Or just playtest it as a 510 army and play 3xEI + Kiova. Although I heard Atlaga wasn't too bad either. heh
 
Is there any chance of the Council deciding on the errata'd unit(s) to playtest before December 7th?

I picked the start of the next month since we are so close anyway and it makes things nice and neat. I'll probably end up setting up the playtest unit by Dec 1. Why don't you mess around with some North Texas Shootout ideas until then? :D

Are non-council members welcome to post here and have their opinion heard?
Yep, everyone is free to post their ideas and discuss errata here. The council members are just the ones who get to pick what goes on the table for errata.

Is there a limit to the number of members in the council or representatives groups?
I will probably stop the council members at 6. My plan is to add one a month (giving them the honors of picking the errata for the month they come on) and then stopping there. After that, we'll probably only add council members as they drop out. 6 seems like a nice number as it gives council members 2 opportunities a year to formally submit their errata.

I don't plan on capping the representative pool. One of the keys to good playtesting is getting as many games in as possible. As long as people are doing "valid" playtesting, I don't see a reason to cap it. If the pool gets very large, I may adjust the weight system a little bit more so that council members aren't "drowned out".

I'm not sure if I agree with the secret ballot system, for example BoV has a healthy record and doesn't require such measures.
I actually wouldn't mind having the BoV do secret voting. In my opinion, group think can be detrimental to getting unique perspectives and keeping an open mind. I don't want to see some people turn in votes before others even get around to playing the errata. Seeing people's votes ahead of time will color your view and expectations and effect your vote (at least to some extent). I'd like to keep everyone's votes as unique and individual as possible.

Hopefully it works well. If it turns out that it's not working, we can definitely tweak the system (that goes for anything in the by laws). It's not like I think that I created the best system on the first pass :D . I'm sure there will be some hiccups once we get rolling, but we can fix them on the fly.
 
This looks really good.

At first I thought it would move too slowly, but after reading through it a few times I realized that by the third month there will be six figures being tested/voted on.

And six at once seems right.

I would also like to know what the first two figures will be...

What do you want to see posted here versus the old thread?

If I have ideas for making changes, do I post them here or there?

Or what exactly?
 
I'm happy with the units as they are so I don't expect to contribute a great deal (but I'll probably keep an eye on the thread because talking about Heroscape is fun).

However, I did want to suggest that you change "errata" to "adjustments" or "boosts" or something. Errata are errors, usually minor typographical ones, and usually acknowledged and corrected by the author/creator. I don't think that's what you're claiming to be fixing: you're making changes to perfectly correct units so that they function better in a different environment to the one for which they were designed, right?

:2cents:
 
I'm happy with the units as they are so I don't expect to contribute a great deal (but I'll probably keep an eye on the thread because talking about Heroscape is fun).

However, I did want to suggest that you change "errata" to "adjustments" or "boosts" or something. Errata are errors, usually minor typographical ones, and usually acknowledged and corrected by the author/creator. I don't think that's what you're claiming to be fixing: you're making changes to perfectly correct units so that they function better in a different environment to the one for which they were designed, right?

:2cents:
Good point Ollie.
Does anyone have ideas for a better descriptive term? HA = Heroscape Adjusted
 
What do you want to see posted here versus the old thread?

I suspect that the old thread will loss activity to this thread. The old thread is really more about changes I like (with input from the community) and this thread should be all about what the Congress wants, etc. What I expect to see posted here is discussion about possible errata to be proposed, reaction to the voting results, and anything relating to how the Congress is running, etc.

If I have ideas for making changes, do I post them here or there?
Yeah. Future council members will probably be viewing most of the posts on this thread and that will be the best way to get ideas in front of them and on the proposed list.

Also, as for changing the term errata, I'll spend some time trying to think of a better term. Ollie is right, I don't want to give the impression that there are errors in the cards or that somehow the system isn't balanced. The tournament scene has taken the game in a direction that it wasn't necessarily designed for. This organization is simply about trying to make slight adjustment to the great units that have been produced to bring more variety into the tournament scene.
 
Instead of "errata" what about "variant"?

And I don't think I can make it 'til December 7th, Dignan! I'm gettin' all ansty to get started. If a unit is selected by Turkey Day I could probably get a couple games out of it then (depending on how good the football games are ;))
 
I also am itching to see the first changes.

I begged Dignan for a hint and he said, "liquid tiger."

And I'm not stupid, so I figured it out right away...
 
Lots of Drudge talk in the other thread and I wanted to put this idea in front of the "council" and see what he thought of it:

Marro Drudge (Sorry, no link. I dunno how to do that fancy code stuff.)
Change Swamp Water Strength as follows: "Swamp Water Strength When a Marro Drudge is on a swamp water space add 1 to its attack and defense. Marro Drudges do not have to stop their movement when entering water spaces."

Change Swamp Water Tunnel as follows: "Swamp Water Tunnel When a Marro Drudge ends its normal movement on a swamp water space, you may immediately place it on any empty same-level swamp water space within 5 spaces."

Change Hunters to "SCOUTS"

On another note rym and I played a game with attack 3 Gorillanators and Repeating Stare of Stone Sudema and Gorillanators killed about 2 things an order marker and died almost as quickly. I like them with the attack 3 a lot.

Sudema killed one 10th and died.

(sigh)

We've just had the worst luck getting higher than a 6 with this chick...
 
Those are some good ideas on the drudge and I think they will go a long way to making them viable. And I'm not surprised about Sudema's poor performance. She's just so fragile with such a short range. With the errata, she can at least really do some damage before she dies.

As far as starting the Congress, I think that I will post the December proposal's a little early so that people can be some testing games in over the Holidays.
 
On another note rym and I played a game with attack 3 Gorillanators and Repeating Stare of Stone Sudema and Gorillanators killed about 2 things an order marker and died almost as quickly. I like them with the attack 3 a lot.

I thought for testing purposes we were only supposed to errata one army card at a time to make the results more reliable?
 
On another note rym and I played a game with attack 3 Gorillanators and Repeating Stare of Stone Sudema and Gorillanators killed about 2 things an order marker and died almost as quickly. I like them with the attack 3 a lot.

I thought for testing purposes we were only supposed to errata one army card at a time to make the results more reliable?

Obviously DrL was just having fun, as the Congress hasn't officially started testing yet.
 
Well, I understand that the formal process hasn't begun but from an efficiency standpoint, if you're going to go to the trouble to test some of the errata, wouldn't it be a good idea to regulate the testing anyway in order to get results we can use later on?

Or do I have a stick up my butt about this? :lol:
 
I think that Sudema's suggested changes haven't been game-breaking in any way, shape, or form. You'd think it would be easy to roll 7 or higher on the blasted d20, but that hasn't been the case. In two games I played, it took a third attempt (3 OM's) to get the Stare of Stone to work successfully the first time to even get a second roll.

In DrLivingston's case, he rolled above a 7 on the first roll, and the subsequent roll ended up being 5. She has these changes we want to implement, but the truth is, they really haven't come to fruition yet. And I think that's a good thing.

She's not game-breaking, yet you still have to give up a lot of points to put her potential into your army. Using her in conjunction with the Gorillinators didn't seem to make either unit any better - or worse - than before. I think we (DrL and I) were able to objectively take the effectiveness of each unit into consideration, separate from one another, in reviewing whether or not the changes are overpowering, underpowered, or have absolutely no affect whatsoever.

That being said, it was just a for-fun game to test out and play on DrL's swamp water map, so all opinions are invalidated anyway, since the Congress has deemed we are to review units singlely, as you mentioned, CL.
 
Well, do to the interest in getting things under way before Thanksgiving, I'm going to go ahead and propose the two variants for this December.

Proposal #1

Unit: Gorillinators
Proposal(s): Change TOUGH to read as follows: "When rolling defense dice against an <omit> attack...". Additionally, increase their attack value from 2 to 3.
Commentary: While fixing tough helps the Gorillinators, the weak attack for such an expensive 3 man squad is still a hindrance to them being viable.

Proposal #2


Unit: Einar Imperium
Proposal: Give Einar Imperium EINAR KYRIE BONDING: "Before taking a turn with Einar Imperium, you may first take a turn with any unique hero Kyrie hero you control who follows Einar."
Commentary: As a very expensive and fragile unit the EI need something to increase their survivability. Hopefully, bonding with Kiova will help increase their odds of sticking around while being balanced enough to keep them from being overpowered.

The playtesting for these proposals can begin whenever you want. Votes will be due by Friday March 5th. Please take time to play games with these rules and keep in mind that we want to make units "viable" and not necessarily A+. Let me know if you have any questions.
 
Woo Hoo!

Now I will be packing up some 'scape when I head to San Antonio for the family Thanksgiving celebration!

Gorillinators seem right but Einer...

Well, we'll see what happens.
 
Back
Top